> I can't even imagine where you would find an institution willing to let its employees take such risks today.
Uhm, OceansGate?
Uhm, OceansGate?
The crew of the Trieste continued to descend knowing full well that their vessel was damaged.
That's not the same thing in my mind.
I feel like OceanGate did not really pay that much attention to window safety.
There was nothing abstract whatsoever about the lack of adequate preparation and responsibility taken: they did not certify, and they used components that were not rated for the depths of their dives, among many other things. This was not ignorance. This was boldly deciding not to care about safety. They ignored very vocal and direct outspoken concerns from all their peers in the industry for years, specific concerns about what they were doing that was not safe, and they ignored that too. Not abstract.
A reckless teenager driving at 120mph on the highway with no seatbelt is obviously in serious danger, but to their young, impulsive mind the danger may feel completely abstract.
[1]From Schlock Mercenary's "Seventy Maxims of Maximially Effective Mercenaries".
https://www.ovalkwiki.com/index.php/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Ma...